From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 10 Aug 2001 09:29:15 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 10 Aug 2001 09:29:05 -0400 Received: from mail.mesatop.com ([208.164.122.9]:7175 "EHLO thor.mesatop.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 10 Aug 2001 09:28:47 -0400 Message-Id: <200108101328.f7ADSue26118@thor.mesatop.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Steven Cole Reply-To: elenstev@mesatop.com To: torvalds@transmeta.com Subject: Re: Some dbench 32 results for 2.4.8-pre8, 2.4.7-ac10, and 2.4.7 Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 07:26:47 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.2.2] In-Reply-To: <200108100502.f7A52Ve23324@thor.mesatop.com> In-Reply-To: <200108100502.f7A52Ve23324@thor.mesatop.com> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Linus Torvalds wrote: >Does the numbers change if you do something like > > killall -STOP kupdated > echo 80 64 64 256 500 6000 90 > /proc/sys/vm/bdflush > >to make it less eager to write stuff out? (That just stops the >every-five-second flush, and makes the dirty balancing numbers be 80/90% >instead of the default 30/60%) > >In particular, the dirty balancing worked really badly before, and was >just fixed. I suspect that the bdflush numbers were tuned with the >badly-working case, and they might be a bit too aggressive for dbench >these days.. Sorry Linus for the late reply, but I went to bed just before your message. I re-ran dbench 32 with the settings above. Here are the results: (Same conditions as in the previous tests otherwise). Now, off to my day job. Run #1 Throughput 12.7943 MB/sec 2.4.8-pre8 Run #2 Throughput 12.667 MB/sec 2.4.8-pre8 Run #3 Throughput 12.7091 MB/sec 2.4.8-pre8 Run #4 Throughput 13.7765 MB/sec 2.4.7 Run #5 Throughput 13.9632 MB/sec 2.4.7 Run #6 Throughput 13.9318 MB/sec 2.4.7 Steven